Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Whizbang Dustyboots" data-source="post: 8299042" data-attributes="member: 11760">From a game design standpoint, &quot;witch&quot; occupies a much clearer conceptual space than &quot;sorcerer&quot; or &quot;warlock&quot; does and is more immediately familiar and understandable to a new player and the general public than almost any other class. (The general public will give you a blank stare when you mention &quot;cleric&quot; or &quot;druid,&quot; for example.)It might be that witches should have been introduced decades ago, and they've been elbowed out of the picture by this point, but they're arguably one of the biggest concepts in fantasy pop culture that doesn't have a clear specific analogue in D&amp;D. (And no, &quot;you can play it if you take something named something else and then adjust it in several ways a newbie wouldn't know how to do&quot; isn't the same thing.)For myself, I would prefer it be either a core class (replacing the sorcerer, perhaps, which has really lost a lot of its reason for being in 5E, with the wizard and warlock dividing up its 3E role) or as a PHB-level subclass of either the wizard, warlock or druid.My wife is playing a transmuter hexblood, which is as close as she can get as a relative D&amp;D newbie to capturing a classic Wizard of Oz wicked/Halloween witch vibe. It's not tremendously satisfying, honestly, so I might see if she's interested in playing a Witherbloom wizard instead. (She's got a real bias against druids after playing EverQuest.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Whizbang Dustyboots, post: 8299042, member: 11760"] From a game design standpoint, "witch" occupies a much clearer conceptual space than "sorcerer" or "warlock" does and is more immediately familiar and understandable to a new player and the general public than almost any other class. (The general public will give you a blank stare when you mention "cleric" or "druid," for example.) It might be that witches should have been introduced decades ago, and they've been elbowed out of the picture by this point, but they're arguably one of the biggest concepts in fantasy pop culture that doesn't have a clear specific analogue in D&D. (And no, "you can play it if you take something named something else and then adjust it in several ways a newbie wouldn't know how to do" isn't the same thing.) For myself, I would prefer it be either a core class (replacing the sorcerer, perhaps, which has really lost a lot of its reason for being in 5E, with the wizard and warlock dividing up its 3E role) or as a PHB-level subclass of either the wizard, warlock or druid. My wife is playing a transmuter hexblood, which is as close as she can get as a relative D&D newbie to capturing a classic Wizard of Oz wicked/Halloween witch vibe. It's not tremendously satisfying, honestly, so I might see if she's interested in playing a Witherbloom wizard instead. (She's got a real bias against druids after playing EverQuest.) [/QUOTE]

Verification